Evans v. Commonwealth (Aug. 6, 2024)
Facts
On April 3, 2022, Lynchburg police responded to a “disorderly” call at Evans’ residence.
Officer S.C. Reed was the K9 handler, accompanied by the police dog Knox.
Knox was trained to bite and hold a suspect who resists.
The dog wore a bullet-resistant vest inscribed with “POLICE” on one side and “K-9” on the other.
Officer Reed arrived at Evans’ home and left Knox in the patrol vehicle initially.
When Evans slammed his door shut and later came to the porch, Reed announced his presence.
Evans made aggressive and loud actions (slamming doors, banging windows) and verbally directed profanity at officers.
When the dog was deployed, Knox bit Evans’ leg.
Evans struck Knox (punching the dog on the head) while it was biting his leg, allegedly in an attempt to get the bite to release.
Legal Issues & Court’s Reasoning
Animal Cruelty / “Willfully inflicting inhumane injury”
Evans was convicted of animal cruelty for striking Knox.
The court evaluated whether Evans’ actions—striking the dog while it bit him—met the statutory standard of “willful infliction of inhumane injury.”
The court concluded the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of willful cruelty. The court noted that Evans’ punches were reflexive defensive actions, not necessarily intended to injure Knox.
The court reversed the conviction for animal cruelty.
Resisting Arrest & Disorderly Conduct
The appeal also challenged convictions for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.
The court found error in the conviction for resisting arrest, noting that Evans was never within the officer’s immediate control (a door separated them). Thus, his closing of the door did not constitute credible flight or resistance.
On disorderly conduct, the court likewise reversed, finding that Evans’ verbal expressions (even profane demands that the officers leave) did not have the “direct tendency” to provoke violence from properly trained police officers.
Takeaways & Significance
The case illustrates the complexity in applying animal cruelty statutes in the context of K9 deployments—especially when the subject reacts while the dog is biting.
The court distinguishes defensive reactions to a dog bite vs. willful cruelty toward the dog.
It emphasizes that the threshold for proving “willful” conduct under Virginia law is higher than mere reflexive or spontaneous acts in self-defense.
It also shows that when a suspect is not within an officer’s control (e.g., separated by a door), claims of resisting arrest may be weak under Virginia law.
Because the decision is unpublished, it is not a binding precedent, though it may carry persuasive value in similar Virginia cases.
